Better handling of proxy users

[ajparsons]

Summary

Problem:

• People write on behalf of other people through WriteToThem and use the postcode of why they're writing on behalf of.
• The interface doesn't let people modify the postcode when entering the full address, so people put 'their' postcode in the town column.
• The message then gets held for review because of the double postcode (responsible for lots of user support time).
• Not clarity in the address information passed on about contact information of both parties involved.

Suggested solution:

• Signpost to tell people to write the right address in the box, and include anything else in the text of message.
• Adjust FAQ to suggest the kinds of uses we think are valid, while warning off general issue based advocacy.

More details

We've done some research to establish the scale and kinds of proxies, and broadly I think this kind of second hand contacting is different from the kind of issue-based spam we're trying to discourage, while including communication on behalf of clients that might generally be a highly impactful use of the service.

This issue is previously discussed in #456 and #455. These provide clearer "don't" guidance on proxy usage, and moves the error to in front of the user to let them know they shouldn't enter a double postcode.

What if we wanted to more explicitly allow proxy usage? Given the figure of people writing to an MP other than their own seems to be around 1%, and no where near this volume hits user support, this suggests most proxy users either only write the address of who they're writing on behalf or include their address in the message. This suggests a minimal approach along the lines of #456, where mismatches are told to write only the matching address in the box and the error can then bounce them back to this advice.

Something along these lines seems compatible with current usage, is not in opposition to promoting proxy usage more if we wanted to, and is a development-light solution that reduces user support. This should also go along with a modification of the FAQ to highlight the kind of uses we think are ok (and that where possible, recommend people write on their own behalf), while being clear 'on someone else's behalf' is not an invitation for general issue based advocacy.

Representative attitudes and procedures

The remaining big unknown is how representatives react to proxy messages. This research also found no real difference in response rate (content of those responses unknown, but no difference in 'unsatisfactory' responses) between people writing on behalf of other people to their own representative or another, so there are no warning signs that this bad for user outcomes at the moment.

The official guidance on this is sparse. I think we can be comfortable promoting proxy voting if we set bounds on what we're encouraging. There is a House of Commons Library standard note on 'Members and Constituency Etiquette' that is very clear that a constituent's issues should go to their MP (and other MPs shouldn't get involved without discussion), but very little on this kind of proxy activity. The closest is where someone holds power of attorney on behalf of someone in a different constituency, which then quotes a section from the W4MP website: "W4MP, nevertheless, feels clear that the person holding the power of attorney should contact the Member representing the constituency in which the person they act for lives" (although the opinions of individual MPs may differ). Some proxy situations are more like this than others, but in general I think a "If someone can write on their own behalf they should, but otherwise you can write to their MP if you are the only person likely to do so" [as in not a campaign] approach is defendable.

[ajparsons]

@abimysoc : What do you think of this? [especially of including any other addresses in the message text]

[abibroom]

I see I stated my core view in #456:

It would be better to detect and warn as soon as a user enters something in the address field that looks like a postcode.

Our golden path workflow is "enter your own postcode on the homepage to write to your own representative".

Proxy users are "enter someone else's postcode on the homepage to write to their representative, but also provide my own address as a reply-to", your suggestion sounds fine for that.

But there's also the case of the user who's never seen the homepage. Their friend posted on Facebook and said "I just wrote to my MP, here's the link" giving something like https://www.writetothem.com/who?pc=SW1A+0AA (yes, this friend lives in the Palace of Westminster) rather than https://www.writetothem.com/. The postcode is pre-filled, and our user can't change it so they write their own in the address field. I think we'd also want to cater for them - parliamentary constituencies are pretty big so no harm done if they and their FB friend live in the same one, but the more local you go, the higher the chance that their message won't go to the right rep.

I would therefore suggest a preliminary step before we turn to the assumption it's proxy usage:

"Hey, user, looks like you've entered two postcodes - what's the deal?"

• I'm writing on behalf of someone else
• My correct postcode is [SW1A 0AA] / [the one they put in the address field]